HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ex-Rep. Joe Walsh: I Can’...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:38 PM

Ex-Rep. Joe Walsh: I Can’t Afford Child Support Payments

Ex-Rep. Joe Walsh: I Can’t Afford Child Support Payments

IGOR BOBIC 6:13 PM EST, MONDAY FEBRUARY 11, 2013

Former Rep. and Tea Party darling Joe Walsh has filed a request in Cook County Circuit Court to cease paying child support payments because he is no longer employed, the Chicago Sun-Times reported on Monday:

In a Feb. 1 court filing entitled “motion to terminate child support obligation,” Walsh’s attorneys asked to change his support requirement, which under a previous agreement, was to continue until May.

“Joe’s employment has been terminated through no voluntary act of his own and he is without sufficient income or assets with which to continue to pay his support obligation,” the filing states. “Due to substantial change of circumstances, Joe requests that his child support obligation be terminated based on his present income and circumstances.”

At one point, the filing asks to amend his payments to be equal to 20 percent of his income — which presumably is 20 percent of zero.


more:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ex-rep-joe-walsh-i-cant-afford-child

45 replies, 2809 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ex-Rep. Joe Walsh: I Can’t Afford Child Support Payments (Original post)
kpete Feb 2013 OP
Make7 Feb 2013 #1
mythology Feb 2013 #26
DollarBillHines Feb 2013 #2
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #27
blueamy66 Feb 2013 #30
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #32
blueamy66 Feb 2013 #34
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #35
IdaBriggs Feb 2013 #42
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #40
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #39
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #38
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #41
treestar Feb 2013 #3
blueamy66 Feb 2013 #31
treestar Feb 2013 #43
Terra Alta Feb 2013 #4
madamesilverspurs Feb 2013 #5
tavalon Feb 2013 #19
yardwork Feb 2013 #6
Katashi_itto Feb 2013 #7
rurallib Feb 2013 #14
Katashi_itto Feb 2013 #25
sadbear Feb 2013 #8
LonePirate Feb 2013 #9
Auntie Bush Feb 2013 #18
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #10
Ilsa Feb 2013 #11
arcane1 Feb 2013 #13
arcane1 Feb 2013 #12
pepperbear Feb 2013 #15
JRLeft Feb 2013 #16
Buns_of_Fire Feb 2013 #45
tavalon Feb 2013 #17
0rganism Feb 2013 #20
niyad Feb 2013 #21
underpants Feb 2013 #22
lunasun Feb 2013 #23
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #24
LineReply .
theKed Feb 2013 #28
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2013 #29
Sheldon Cooper Feb 2013 #33
ScreamingMeemie Feb 2013 #36
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #37
arthritisR_US Feb 2013 #44

Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:41 PM

1. Good God man! Grab those bootstraps and pull yourself up! ( n/t )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Make7 (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:29 PM

26. But he is

Of course those bootstraps are attached to the boots he's metaphorically kicking his kids with.

As a 15 year old kid my dad told me that he had a bottle of champagne in the fridge for when I turned 18 and his child support payments would stop. So Walsh can go clean a portopottie with his toothbrush for all I care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:42 PM

2. Is that a legitimate excuse in Illinois?

Get a job, deadbeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:36 AM

27. Where I live

(not in the US BTW) you can't just quit your job and then ask for support payments to be some percentage of your non-existent salary. The judge will take into account how long you've worked, what your average salary was, what the local unemployment rate is etc. I have a few friends whose ex's tried to go from 6 figure salaries to pumping gas to claim poverty so they didn't have to pay, and the judges never fell for it. (My ex once threatened the same thing.)

Plus, if some deadbeat decides not to pay, his wages get guarnished. If he refuses to pay still, (quits, tries serial jobs to stay a step ahead of the judge) his driver's license gets taken away. Somehow, the law has to make it NOT worth it for a non-custodial parent to skip out on their obligations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:11 AM

30. How about people who are laid off?

 

Should their drivers licenses be yanked as well? Cause that will really help them get a new job. Or how about those that are so sick that they can't work anymore? Oh yeah....let's garnish the hell outta them too!

And it really makes sense to garnish support against the big, fat $200 a week in unemployment one gets in AZ. That way one can't afford gas or rent or food.

Sensible adults should be able to come to sensible agreements...which includes not putting either parent into the poor house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:02 AM

32. Oh it's YOU again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:12 AM

34. Go do some laundry.

 

Yeah, it's me. Did ya miss me?

How about you answer the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:27 AM

35. I've had this conversation with you before.

We know you're bitter that your husband has kids from a previous marriage. Don't take it out on them.

So, let's just pretend I've never explained this to you before....

If someone is laid off and getting unemployment benefits, then they pay the same percentage as before. If the ex was getting 50% of the salary, then they are now getting 50% of the benefits. Now, judges here take this on a case by case basis. If a spouse is ill and on disability, then the ex gets a percentage of that too. The reasons are: the children need to be looked after and if the parents were still together, that money would be going towards the kids, and that kids shouldn't suffer because of the split. I looked it up and they are even more strict than I thought - if someone refuses to pay they can:

•Garnish income tax refunds, GST rebates, Canada Pension Plan income, and Employment Insurance payments;
•The debtor may have his or her driver’s licence, registration, licence plates, or abstracts restricted or suspended;
•Recreational licences for fishing and hunting may be restricted;
•Passports can be revoked;
•Failure to make child support payments may be registered as bad debt and affect credit;

They can also seize assets or prevent a remortgaging. There can also be fines etc.

Keep in mind, that if someone loses their job not of their own doing, support payments will be adjusted accordingly. However, it's on a case-by-case basis with each judge, but all support payments have to follow federal guidelines. If someone quits simply to avoid paying payments, the judges generally can tell and will not take it lightly.

Go do some laundry - LOL, you're so original.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:51 AM

42. ^== This. GREAT answer.

No sympathy for a girlfriend of a guy with kids. Kids *ALWAYS* come first. You pick a man with a previous life, prepare to be second class for the rest of yours. (And the same goes with the sexes reversed.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:36 AM

40. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:35 AM

39. Does the child stop needing food then? Shelter? Medical care?

Why does the other parent have to take up the slack?

They don't.

Oh, wait. It's YOU again. You don't agree with child support payments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:34 AM

38. It's like that in the US, too

Your payments also don't stop if you are incarcerated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:46 AM

41. Does it vary by state?

I was under the impression states varied widely on this issue but I definitely could be wrong on that and am curious at how much it varies state to state. The thing with Canada is while it's technically a provincial thing, there are federal guidelines that must be followed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:43 PM

3. Then he needs to take any job

that he can get, that pays at least something, and the payments will be adjusted accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:12 AM

31. Yeah, right

 

What world do you live in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:48 PM

43. I don't think Family Court will let him get away with no payments at all

There are going to attribute income to him if they think he is capable of earning it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:44 PM

4. I didn't think he was paying to begin with.

In any case, his deadbeat ass should either get a job, or go to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:53 PM

5. No pity for him. At all.

I know way too many parents who bend over backwards to make sure their kids have enough -- enough food, clothing, school supplies, shoes, toys, medicines, roof over their head, heat in the furnace, love, encouragement, emotional support -- even those who are separated from their kids, they still make sure the children come first.

Walsh is one of the stereotypical good-old-boy deadbeats, blames his ex for all his own failings, thinks that supporting his offspring means she lives in luxury; thinks if he's out of the house he has no responsibility, that he shouldn't be required to meet his obligations.

Hey, asshole: Quit punishing your kids because you can't grow the hell up enough to take responsibility for your own life.


-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:29 PM

19. I'm one of those parents you mentioned

I have no sympathy for this piece of shit who hasn't bothered to grow up and take personal responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:56 PM

6. So we're supposed to subsidize this deadbeat irresponsible parent?

Such hypocrites Republicans are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:58 PM

7. If he can't, pay jail him. Then bill him for his incarceration. Damned if the taxpayer will foot

his bill. If he can't pay his jailing bill. Add more time, till he pays. This is his responsibility. Guess he shouldn't of had kids he couldn't afford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:12 PM

14. bingo!!!

oh - welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:23 PM

25. Thanks for the welcome! :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:00 PM

8. Man, can the tea party pick some losers, or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:19 PM

9. Ha! He lost his job through no voluntary act of his own (except for his extremist nutjob positions).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:28 PM

18. I would say being a nasty, loud mouthed asshole was a totally voluntary act.

He can get a job at McDonalds...oh wait...they wouldn't want him.

He knew his job as representative could be short or not permanent..so why wouldn't a responsible planner save for his unemployment? Yeah! The tea Party knows how to pick em. He should do what ever he preached all the other unemployed people do..and no food stamps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:21 PM

10. Does the mother get to do that, too? So the children will become homeless orphans?

If he wasn't able to provide for children, he should've kept his pants zipped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:48 PM

11. There are lots of laid-off people who have

To take whatever job they can get to feed their kids or just survive, Joe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:52 PM

13. Exactly. He needs to be working 29 hours a week at Papa John's n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:50 PM

12. Sounds like Joe needs a dose of "personal responsibility" right about now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:16 PM

15. don't they get a pension for the rest of their life? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pepperbear (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:20 PM

16. I certain only if you serve for a decade or more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JRLeft (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 05:26 PM

45. I believe it takes five years before one is vested in their plan.

Considering the big-mouthed rodent fornicator with anger-management issues only "served" one term, he's pretty-much S.O.L. on that score.

At that, two years is probably more than he'd last at a McDonald's. Can you imagine putting someone like him in a customer-contact position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:27 PM

17. I do not get this at all

I am recently estranged from my husband. We aren't as of yet officially divorced. I willingly pay half of my paycheck for my (step)child as he has autism and has a lot of medical and dietary needs. If I had an official piece of paper, it would probably say I owe less than a quarter of that, and I would still pay what I'm paying. I do it because it's the right thing to do. I left my husband, not my child.

I'm aware that sometimes circumstances make support payments hard, but I have difficulty believing a congresscritter would qualify for that. He makes a heck of a lot more than I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:32 PM

20. The only way he paid his child support through 2012 was with taxpayer money!

What a hypocrite. 'Nuff said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:39 PM

21. from what I remember, he wasn't paying even then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:40 PM

22. = loser

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:06 PM

23. didnt his ex wife and kids stand next to him during most of the 2012 election

calling Tammy Duckworth a liar etc. about the support issues?? He really threw them all under the bus once he didn't need them anymore for political eye candy

Bet he is pulling unemployment too whch would not be an issue if he didnt label people on it as unwilling to work and voted against extensions
Walsh has been married twice, and has five children!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:08 PM

24. God, WHAT a loser.

How exactly are you feeding and sheltering yourself, you fetid pig? Whatever money you're using for that you can use to support your spawn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:42 AM

28. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:46 AM

29. Get a job, asshole

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:05 AM

33. YOU LIE!!!

Pay for your kids, loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:29 AM

36. “Joe’s employment has been terminated through no voluntary act of his own"

snerk

I think thousands of constituents would disagree with that one, Joe...

Support Your Children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:30 AM

37. As Judge Judy says

Sell your car and house, flip burgers, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:54 PM

44. I hear WalMart needs greeters, what's the

problem Joe? Come on mate, you can't expect the oversized government to pay for your kids now, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread